| cityhunter said:Ridley Scott should make SF movies again, or even close the Alien franchise. |
Word has it that Scott is making another Alien movie. Supposedly a prequel to Alien.
| cityhunter said:Ridley Scott should make SF movies again, or even close the Alien franchise. |
Word has it that Scott is making another Alien movie. Supposedly a prequel to Alien.
READING THIS LIST MAKES ME INSANE WITH ANGER!
"I like my steaks how i like my women. Bloody and all over my face"
"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur
Ok, competitive list, still T2 made it but not T1? How? Both are equally good films.
Reasonable said:
Yah - but is it SF? A lot of fantasy stuff get's bundled into SF in my view and it shouldn't. Star Wars is an out and out fantasy with the trapping of SF in sets but is completely improbable. I really like the OT (particularly Empire which I think is fantastic) but I've never actually seen them as true SF. SF, looking to the more literary distiniction, would be films like 2001, Mad Max, Moon, Gattaca, etc. but it would exclude those titles as they are strictly speaking fantasy rather that truly exploring social/personal implications of aspects of technology on our lives (which is what literary SF is all about). But then literary SF is overrun in general bookshops by fantasy so I guess why not films? Because it's not SF! Sorry, but I really like SF and I take its definition pretty seriously. Most film critics don't know or bother either, hence why you always get anything with any technology in it bundled into SF. From a pure SF perspective, Mad Max 2 is a far, far better SF film - and relevant to us in its exploration of the impact of society crumbling due to failure of power sources - than say Star Wars. Star Wars is Lord of the Rings played out against a fantasy, Gernsbackian inspired background. |
Excellent points, Reasonable. Star Wars, IMO, is 100% fantasy. Even George Lucas believes it to be fantasy and not science fiction. I've argued that point many a time...
I consider sci-fi to be movies that, as you said, directly involve "science" somewhere in them and not focus another story around technology, with the tech being only a backdrop for another story. Under this classification, Blade Runner is definitely sci-fi while Alien is borderline science fiction. Gattaca is sci-fi , as is Moon.
Stuff like Transformers is fantasy, just like Star Wars (though obviously not on the same level). People arguing that Jurassic Park isn't science fiction when it's one of the BEST examples of sci-fi on that list. The issues dealt with in the novel/film are based in reality and explore humanity's role in technology and the dangers of abusing it without a second thought. On the other hand, Back to the Future isn't science fiction. The time machine is nothing more than a plot device and it's a popcorn film (though a very good one). The characters may as well be teleporting from spot to spot with how little thought is given to the actual "science" portion of the film.

Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
| rocketpig said: Excellent points, Reasonable. Star Wars, IMO, is 100% fantasy. Even George Lucas believes it to be fantasy and not science fiction. I've argued that point many a time... I consider sci-fi to be movies that, as you said, directly involve "science" somewhere in them and not focus another story around technology, with the tech being only a backdrop for another story. Under this classification, Blade Runner is definitely sci-fi while Alien is borderline science fiction. Gattaca is sci-fi , as is Moon. Stuff like Transformers is fantasy, just like Star Wars (though obviously not on the same level). People arguing that Jurassic Park isn't science fiction when it's one of the BEST examples of sci-fi on that list. The issues dealt with in the novel/film are based in reality and explore humanity's role in technology and the dangers of abusing it without a second thought. On the other hand, Back to the Future isn't science fiction. The time machine is nothing more than a plot device and it's a popcorn film (though a very good one). The characters may as well be teleporting from spot to spot with how little thought is given to the actual "science" portion of the film. |
1.21 jigawatt flux capacitor!

most of them are classic ones, but....
.
.
WHERE THE HELL IS INCEPTION ?????

| 880user088 said: most of them are classic ones, but.... . . WHERE THE HELL IS INCEPTION ????? |
Should be on the next list some years from now in the 20-15 range.
It haven't stood the test of time yet... is a good excuse if you don't look at Avatar.
| highwaystar101 said: Ok, competitive list, still T2 made it but not T1? How? Both are equally good films. |
I actually think T1 is the better SF film myself - and actually a slightly better film all round - so I'd certainly swap it for T2. T2 was fun, but it lacked the edge and focus on T1, plus it had Arnie giving a thumbs up while being melted, for which it loses 2 points for just being silly.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
I just watched District 9 the other day, it was really good, dunno its one of the top 25 ever though, I would have had more Trek films in there myself, Blade Runner and The Matrix are probably my personal top two, just ahead of the Original Star Wars trilogy (IV,V,VI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo
Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.